Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: unfortunately? (Score 1, Interesting) 43

by roman_mir (#47913965) Attached to: Funding Tech For Government, Instead of Tech For Industry

So 'unfortunately' if you are going to build a product that people may need and enjoy you are going to start a business, that may create new products and create investment opportunities and jobs in the process, you are going to 'siphon'? 'Siphon' talent away from government ('and everybody else')?????

This 'story' is one gigantic flamebait.

There is nothing unfortunate about building your own company to pursue your own goals and you are not siphoning anything from anybody by building your own business. Under all circumstances, it is better if government doesn't get any talent whatsoever, why should talent be wasted in government rather than be applied where it is actually needed: in the private sector, doing something useful?

This entire premise is insane and asinine.

United States

Navy Guilty of Illegally Broad Online Searches: Child Porn Conviction Overturned 270

Posted by samzenpus
from the looking-too-far dept.
An anonymous reader writes In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that Navy investigators regularly run illegally broad online surveillance operations that cross the line of military enforcement and civilian law. The findings overturned the conviction of Michael Dreyer for distributing child pornography. The illegal material was found by NCIS agent Steve Logan searching for "any computers located in Washington state sharing known child pornography on the Gnutella file-sharing network." The ruling reads in part: "Agent Logan's search did not meet the required limitation. He surveyed the entire state of Washington for computers sharing child pornography. His initial search was not limited to United States military or government computers, and, as the government acknowledged, Agent Logan had no idea whether the computers searched belonged to someone with any "affiliation with the military at all." Instead, it was his "standard practice to monitor all computers in a geographic area," here, every computer in the state of Washington. The record here demonstrates that Agent Logan and other NCIS agents routinely carry out broad surveillance activities that violate the restrictions on military enforcement of civilian law. Agent Logan testified that it was his standard practice to "monitor any computer IP address within a specific geographic location," not just those "specific to US military only, or US government computers." He did not try to isolate military service members within a geographic area. He appeared to believe that these overly broad investigations were permissible, because he was a "U.S. federal agent" and so could investigate violations of either the Uniform Code of Military Justice or federal law."

Comment: Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score -1) 855

by roman_mir (#47902859) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

I am an atheist because I do not believe in anything supernatural.

AFAIC if something has no evidence it may or may not exist, however if a belief requires me to accept possibility of unnatural phenomena I am going to reject it completely until such time that it is actually shown to be true repeatedly and without possibility of being faked.

If you show me a magic trick, pull out a bunny out of a hat and claim that there was no bunny hidden anywhere near you and anywhere near the hat and the bunny simply appeared out of nowhere because you willed it to appear, I want to study you and the hat and the bunny. I want to figure out what makes it possible for you to achieve that effect (and how it can be replicated and possibly used for other things, like pulling electrical power out of a hat or something). I suspect that if such a thing happened and somebody was pulling bunnies out of hats, we would eventually figure out how it was done and by figuring it out we would remove the 'unknown' and the 'unnatural' or 'supernatural' about it.

I do not believe in things that are seemingly impossible, and when somebody claims something impossible, I want a serious study of that, not something based on feelings and reading of scriptures, but actual delving into the reasons behind it.

Comment: Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score 1) 460

by bobbied (#47884533) Attached to: CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"

It's happened 65 thousand times according to this article. You can't assume that just because someone can't afford a lawyer that they're guilty.

Seizure of property perhaps. Unjustified seizure of property, not so often. I've only heard of ONE case myself where the seizure was found to be unjustified.

So are you claiming that some people just let the property go when it wasn't a justified seizure? Can you produce examples? I'm sure there are organizations that would be happy to fund the legal bills to get their property back as what you suggest is a violation of the 5th amendment.

Comment: Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score -1, Troll) 460

by bobbied (#47884479) Attached to: CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"

and that requires that they actually have some level of proof that illegal activity was going on.

You haven't been following this issue very much, have you? Siezures have been made where there was no proof, only suspicion (based on the flimsiest of evidence). As the owner, you don't have the right to challenge the siezure -- the siezure is made against the property itself.

Oh I understand the issue just fine. But, they have to have a minimum level of proof to do the seizure and they also have to defend the action in court if/when the property owner objects. A judge will rip them a new one if they don't come up with justification and the property owner objects. There are checks and balances here.

Comment: Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score -1, Troll) 460

by bobbied (#47884427) Attached to: CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"

Like I said to another poster. This unlawful seizure has only happened in a handful of cases over the last decade, and those where corrected by the courts, property returned and officers involved appropriately disciplined.

The original story reads like this happens every day. Sorry, that's not true. It doesn't happen once a week, or once a month even. For the vanishingly few cases where police forces are actively looking for things to seize, you lower your personal risk by not LOOKING like someone who's stuff they can get their hands on easily. Thus my advice to be careful of appearances.

Look, many TV programs have tried and failed to document this happening since the law was passed. 20/20 came about as close as anybody, but all they really caught on camera was a questionable traffic stop and a whole lot of people who where claiming to be innocent but had serious credibility issues. If the press cannot find and document this, it's NOT happening with any frequency that should be concerning.

If you choose to look like you might be doing something illegal, best figure on being more interesting to those who are charged with preventing crime. So it's up to you. If you want to be stopped and questioned more often, go ahead.

Comment: Re:In other words....Don't look like a drug traffi (Score -1) 460

by bobbied (#47884213) Attached to: CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"

So, you believe it is okay for the government to confiscate your property, without being able to articulate a _reasonable_ suspicion of criminal activity, without charging you with a crime, and without convicting you of a crime?

No., I'm saying that doesn't happen. It's only happened a handful of times, EVER, and the courts fixed it.

If it happens to you, hire a lawyer, get your stuff back.

Comment: In other words....Don't look like a drug trafficer (Score -1, Flamebait) 460

by bobbied (#47883873) Attached to: CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"

Come on, don't fall for this stuff. It's not like we are a police state (yet).

Be reasonable, don't do things that make you look like you are hauling drugs (Including not actually doing it), and things will be OK. Where I get that a foreign national might have a bit more to worry about, especially one driving a car with foreign plates, but remember, all they can get from you is the car and what you are carrying, and that requires that they actually have some level of proof that illegal activity was going on.

Unless you are incredibility stupid, or actually doing something illegal, you have nothing to fear from 99.999% of law enforcement, and for that 0.001% of the time there is a risk, there isn't much you can do anyway. But you have the same things at home I'll bet.

Comment: Re:ok (Score 3, Insightful) 101

by bobbied (#47882679) Attached to: Top EU Court: Libraries Can Digitize Books Without Publishers' Permission

then the next big thing for European libraries is to allow vpning into the library network and remote viewing the kiosks through a webpage. Sounds fair to me.

They need to allow the creation of satellite locations by their members and then connect all these locations (the member's computer) via VPNs... That way, I can just have my own living room become part of the library and read anything in the collection. Sounds like a win/win to me..

If you hype something and it succeeds, you're a genius -- it wasn't a hype. If you hype it and it fails, then it was just a hype. -- Neil Bogart

Working...